Prediction Markets

November 23, 2005

The Secret Life Of Lewis Libby

Over at the Huffington Post we find John Amato huffing and posting about what Libby complained about when he called Tim Russert in July 2003. Jeralyn Merritt has background as well.

Well. Mickey Kaus gave a very plausible answer to this a few weeks back:

kf hears, through trustworthy and knowledgeable sources,
that in his conversation with Russert Libby gave vent to the archetypal
(and wrongheaded)
charge that Matthews was animated by anti-Semitism--presumably because
Matthews talked a lot about "neoconservative" Bush aides and war
supporters and interviewed guests (such as Pat Caddell) who did too.

If
that was Libby's complaint, it would help explain why NBC wanted to
keep quiet about its exact contents. Not only does it potentially bring
up a wild, hard-to-refute issue that the network would rather not have to deal with--but Libby's jag is also something you wouldn't forget,
or make up, which would make Russert's testimony extremely convincing
at trial. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald may have wanted to keep it
secret so it would have as much of an impact as possible, and Russert
may be trying to honor a request from the prosecutor.

Let me run with that and toss in some wild speculation you have seen nowhere else. I am not sure it would come out at trial, but it strikes me as plausible and relevant to the broader question of Libby's motives with respect to Joe Wilson.

Two leading questions will mark my course - first, is there any reason to think that it was only Chris Matthews that struck the "anti-neocon = anti-Semite" nerve in Libby, or is it a reasonable guess that Libby considered others to be anti-Semites as well?

And secondly, what was it with Libby and Joe Wilson?

You can guess the rest - some old appearances of Wilson at least allude to the sort of dual-loyalty issue that seems to be a part of the neocon/anti-Semitism debate. I run them below. And let's be crystal-clear: I am *NOT* alleging that Joe Wilson, Chris Matthews, or anyone else is anti-Semitic. I am speculating that Lewis Libby may have thought so.

Per an old LA Times story, Libby's interest in Wilson seemed to be excessive even to others at the White House:

Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff was so angry about the
public statements of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a Bush
administration critic married to an undercover CIA officer, that he
monitored all of Wilson's television appearances and urged the White
House to mount an aggressive public campaign against him, former aides
say.

...Libby pressed the administration to publicly counter Wilson, sparking a
debate with other White House officials who thought the tactic would
call more attention to the former diplomat and his criticisms. That
debate ended after an April 2004 meeting in the office of White House
Communications Director Daniel Bartlett, when staffers were told "don't
engage" Wilson, according to notes taken during the meeting by one
person present.

Why so angry? The obvious answer would be that Cheney's office marshalled the case for war, and it was Cheney's office that was anonymously attacked by Wilson in the early Kristof columns.

But there were other folks in Cheney's office that should have felt similarly threatened. Might Libby have been motivated by something else?

Let's try a different tack - Wilson claims that it was a Wilson appearance on PBS in Feb 2003 that caught the eye of the White House. Fitzgerald, in his indictment, dated the interest in Wilson to the May 6 Kristof column.

But let's unite the theories! Per this LA Times piece above, Libby gathered up reports on Wilson's writings and public appearances (Yes, the LA Times says it was after Wilson's book, but that makes no sense at all). So, perhaps Libby first took an interest in Wilson after May 6, but let it be known that he considered Wilson's Feb PBS appearance to be important.

Well, then - is there anything in the Wilson appearance on PBS that might be viewed as anti-Semitism? Does Wilson raise the dual loyalty issue?

Let me repeat - I am *NOT* endorsing the "Anti-neocon = anti-Semite" reasoning. Republicans have grown accustomed to hearing that anyone opposed to affirmative action is a racist, as proven by the fact that some affirmative action opponents are racist. That argument does not impress me either. However, if the anti-neocon argument resonated with Libby, let's see where it takes us.

MOYERS: Tell me what you think about the arguments of one of
those men, Richard Perle, who is perhaps the most influential advocate
in the President's and the administration's ear arguing to get rid of
Saddam Hussein. What do you think about his argument?

WILSON: Well, he's certainly the architect of a study that was
produced in the mid-'90s for the Likud Israeli government called "a
clean break, a new strategy for the realm." And it makes the argument
that the best way to secure Israeli security is through the changing of
some of these regimes beginning with Iraq and also including Syria. And
that's been since expanded to include Iran.

MOYERS: So this was drawn up during the '90s…

WILSON: Right. During the '90s, absolutely.

MOYERS: By men outside of all this?

WILSON: Outside of all this, yeah.

MOYERS: And…

WILSON: Now, Richard Perle's been outside of office since the Reagan years.

MOYERS: And this, you're saying that this has become a blueprint for the Bush Administration?

WILSON: Well, I think this is part of what has been the
underpinning of the-- of the philosophical argument that calls for
basically radically changing the political dynamics in the Middle East
and…

MOYERS: To favor Israel?

WILSON: Well, to favor American national security interests and Israeli national security interests which are tied. I mean, we have…

MOYERS: How so?

WILSON: We have an important strategic responsibility to ensure
the territorial integrity of Israel. It's one that we've accepted since
1948. It's one that's been increasingly close. There are those who
believe that perhaps we've confused our responsibilities with the
slavish adherence to the Likud strategy.

MOYERS: Likud, the party.

WILSON: It's the party in power right now. And certainly when
the President or when Sharon comes — the Prime Minister comes to
Washington and says that George Bush is the best friend that Israel
ever had. And George Bush calls him a man of peace, calls Sharon a man
of peace, there are those who wonder about the depth of our ties and
the extent to which our national security responsibilities may somehow
be confused with our support for the current government in Israel.

MOYERS: So help us understand why removing Saddam Hussein and
expanding that movement, throughout the Middle East which would benefit
Israel?

WILSON: Well, I think those are the sorts of questions that you need to ask to Richard Perle. The argument that I would make…

MOYERS: We asked him but he didn't want to come on the show.

Now, I am having a hard time conjuring some empathy with Lewis Libby, and I am having a hard time imagining whether that sounded like a "dual loyalties" attack on supporters of the war against Iraq. Was Wilson speaking in a code that Libby and folks like David Brooks understood to be anti-Semitic?

Or, since Wilson had been at the State Department for years, had he left behind a reputation for being an Arabist?

BUCHANAN: All right, now, what do you think the
president's objective is? He says, we're going to disarm this guy or
I'm going to do it. And you say it's looking like a war of invasion, of
conquest, of occupation, of reorientation.

What do you think the administration's real objective
is? Because, if it is the second,one, they are going to look for a
pretext to get the job done, whether he gives up more weapons or
whatever he's doing.

WILSON: I believe the president's objective is the
national security of the country. I take him at his word on that. And I
believe him when he says that disarming Saddam is absolutely key to the
national security of the country. I do believe, however, that those
around him who have said that, you cannot disarm Saddam without
invading and subsequently occupying the country, I doubt their motives.

He doubts their motives? More code? A bit later, Press addresses this more directly:

PRESS: ...Mr. Ambassador, I want to ask you maybe about the
bigger picture here that's going on, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of
Israel quoted this morning as saying that -- yesterday said: "Iran,
Libya, and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction next
after Iraq. They're also threats after the United States takes care of
Iraq."

He's implying that the United States should take care
of Iran, Libya and Syria and have regime change in all of those
countries as well. Is that President Bush's plan? Is that the American
people are being asked to support?

WILSON: Well, there are certainly those who have
written some of the philosophical underpinnings of this strategy who
make those arguments. The seminal study was "A Clean Break" by Richard Perle
in a study group, many of whom are occupying key positions in this
administration. It's called "A Strategy for the Realm" or something
like that. For the Israeli government, it was written for. And they
make a lot of arguments about how to restructure the Middle East,
including taking out Iraq and regime change in Iraq, applying pressure
to Syria and to Iran.

BUCHANAN: Let me follow up on that.

"A Clean Break," you're right, "A Strategy for the
Realm" was written, I believe, in 1996. It was written for Bibi
Netanyahu, the incoming prime minister of Israel. And it talked about
taking down Iraq first. We have seen Norman Patard's (ph) commentary
list, about seven or eight countries, other scholars over at AEI and
elsewhere.

And the argument is made that, by attacking the
neocons and singling these people out, it is illegitimate to do so,
because you are doing it because of their ethnicity. Did you see the
piece by Lawrence Kaplan today?

WILSON: I saw the piece. I took some offense at it,
because I think it is not the same to be for smart military action or
not for military action and to be essentially being what they are
claiming, anti-Semitic.

(CROSSTALK)

BUCHANAN: Is there not an overlap between what the
neocons are arguing for and what Sharon wants as an American agenda for
the Middle East?

WILSON: Very clearly. And it is actively debated in
Israeli newspapers, including an article in October in "The Haaretz"
which was entitled, "Perles of Wisdom for the Feithful," referring to Richard Perle and Doug Feith, who at the Pentagon.

Well. If we accept that Libby viewed some people as anti-Semitic for the nature of their attacks on the neo-cons, it is possible, based on these excerpts or others, that Joe Wilson was placed by Libby in that category.

And what does that suggest? Well, was anyone convinced by Libby's "I heard about Plame in June from Cheney, but forgot it completely until I heard it again from Russert in July" defense? I didn't think so.

But that already weak-defense becomes absurd if the prosecution can argue that Libby was motivated to "Get Joe" because he believed Wilson to be anti-Semitic.

On the other hand, Libby as a lone gunmen also becomes more plausible - maybe there was no conspiracy, and this Plame leak story is just Libby trying too hard to put Joe Wilson in his place.

Or... I scarcely dare suggest it, but if this was a conspiracy led by a fellow out to quash the anti-Semites, is there any particular ethnic characteristic we might look for in Libby's co-conspirators? Maybe David Wurmser is a more likely suspect than Karl Rove.

I doubt the prosecution would ever let it get that far - the last example particularly illustrates that Fitzgerald would be treading on very thin ice if he started suggesting that a Jewish cabal was out to get Wilson. Frankly, I think the whole topic is sufficiently radioactive that neither side will tackle it.

However, I am not prosecuting this; I am just trying to figure out what happened, and why.

Self Awareness Note: I do not have notebooks devoted to Joesph Wilson's every utterance, and my experience is that Wilson's defenders (the Few, the Proud) are much more inclined to be obsessed with him than I am. But thanks for wondering.

UPDATE: I don't know whether Wilson's EPIC speech of June 14, 2004 would have been available to Libby (or might he have gotten feedback some other way?), but here are some excerpts that might have struck a sensitive neo-con as being anti-Semitic (Remember, its not what you or I think, its what Libby might have thought that matters):

[Includes statements: 19:46: "The real agenda in all this, of course,
was to redraw the political map of the Middle East. Now that is code,
whether you like it or not, but it is code for putting into place the
strategy memorandum which was done by Richard Perle and his study group
in the mid-90s, which was called 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for the
Realm'. And what it is, cut to the quick, is if you take out some of
these countries, or some of these governments, that are antagonistic to
Israel, then you provide the Israeli government with greater
wherewithal to impose its terms and conditions on the Palestinian
people. . .But that is the real agenda. You can put weapons of mass
destruction out there, you can put terrorism out there, you can put
liberation out there. Weapons of mass destruction got hard-headed
realists on board, through a bunch of lies. . ."

...13:33: In response to the question about the geopolitical
agenda behind the Iraq war, Wilson replies, "On the other ones, the
geopolitical situation, I think there are a number of issues at play;
there's a number of competing agendas. One is the remaking of the map
of the Middle East for Israeli security, and my fear is that when it
becomes increasingly apparent that this was all done to make Sharon's
life easier and that American soldiers are dying in order to enable
Sharon to impose his terms upon the Palestinians that people will
wonder why it is American boys and girls are dying for Israel and that
will undercut a strategic relationship and a moral obligation that
we've had towards Israel for 55 years. I think it's a terribly flawed
strategy."

I have been meaning to say this for a while, but I have always found it peculiar that while Matthew's appears to be "in the know" on the OUTSIDE the WH skinny (i.e. the Wilson perspective), but Wilson never goes on Matthew's show. Afterall, Matthew's IS the most sympathetic Wilson lover on TV (i.e. doting, spit dripping SOFTballs)

My thought has always been a "too close for comfort" type situation (particularly since Matthew's tripped over his phone cord to inform of the "fair game" comment)

In light of the Woodward revelation, can't Libby still fall back on the 'bad memory' defense? He thought it was Russert he heard it from, but it was actually someone else? It seems he's not the only with a differing recollection of events.

Interesting post, but I agree that this is probably too radioactive for anyone to really run with. It was always bizarre to think that Libby had tax-payer funded assistants keeping track of speeches Wilson was giving at Wassitsname University AFTER the SP investigation was well under way. It does seem that Libby was strangely obsessed with Wilson, and it's probably a good thing Libby is no longer in the halls of power.

But there was one part of your post that I had to re-read a few times: "Well, was anyone convinced by Libby's 'I heard about Plame in June from Cheney, but forgot it completely until I heard it again from Russert in July' defense? I didn't think so." And here I thought that you read the comment threads to your posts.

-- And here I thought that you read the comment threads to your posts.--

Is it a crime to pass over the ones that are not worth the while? The FORGOT defense (ie HIGH paid attorneys) is founded, since no party (ie reporter) seems to have a rock solid memory of anything. Ask Andrea Mitchell--her story is VERY fluid.

I disagree with Tom and I rarely do--It's a straight line from the VIPS-Wilson dual loyalty charge to the simpler version spouted by Cindy Sheehan . You have only to spend a short time on any chat board to miss the anti-Semitic tone that colors every discussion of PNAC and Perle, Feith Wolfowitz, etc. As Steyn put it of Wolfowitz,"Wolfowitz is a demonic figure to the anti-war types for little reason other than that his name begins with a big scary animal and ends Jewishly."

I don't know if Libby (Jewish) felt that way, but I know I do. And it comes from Buchanan AND the left.

Tom, neo-con is a buzzword that, when used with a sneer by Pat Buchanan and Chris Matthews, pushes my non-Jewish buttons. So I cannot doubt that Libby, if he were as Wilson-conscious as the L.A. Times story sources allege, felt a personal reaction to Wilson's habitual criticism of Israel and conservative supporters of Israel.

I am slightly less Plame obsessed than you are, but my numerous readings about Libby do not place him in the neo-con social circle with Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, et al. Can you imagine any of them dressed in cowboy gear at a Wyoming rodeo in August? Kinky Friedman, maybe.

I try to imagine myself working practically 24/7 as the closest advisor to the most influential Vice President during one of the most stressful, turbulent periods in U.S. history. Suddenly some undistinguished former diplomat launches a deceptive attack on my boss that is adopted uncritically by the mainstream media. The foundation for the diplomat's credibility is his false claim that my boss personally sent him on a fact-finding mission.

Let's pause to savor the irony of Joe Wilson being sent on a fact-finding mission. I guess he's still searching O.J. style for those elusive facts.

I'm not in Scooter's Tony Lama boots, but I can readily believe that he needed no other excuse to despise Wilson.

Happy Thanksgiving to TM and all the JOM regulars who keep me riveted to my computer!

"The session took an awkward turn when witness Ray McGovern, a former intelligence analyst, declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by administration "neocons" so "the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world." He said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

"Israel is not allowed to be brought up in polite conversation," McGovern said. "The last time I did this, the previous director of Central Intelligence called me anti-Semitic."

Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), who prompted the question by wondering whether the true war motive was Iraq's threat to Israel, thanked McGovern for his "candid answer."

- "A person could easily think [Matthews] a bigot "
- "[Wilson’s] Epic Speech isn't easily characterized as PRO-Semitic...that speech does make eyebrows raise"
- "Wolfowitz is a demonic figure to the anti-war types for little reason other than that his name begins with a big scary animal and ends Jewishly."

Back in the day, it was conservatives who mocked liberals for so quickly playing the race/ethnicity/religious card.

(And more card games: Bush's implication that those who doubted democracy in Iraq are racist; those (like Richard Clarke) who dare criticize Condy Rice are anti-black and/or anti-woman; Michael Steele's Oreo stories. Everyone likes being a victim, I guess.)

"Fairfax, Va.: (At the risk of sounding anti-Semitic, which I don't intend), if Saddam didn't support Palestinian suicide bombers, do you think we'd be in a war to liberate Iraq?

Joseph C. Wilson: The literature is clear. His[The President's] closest advisers have argued for years that the way to peace in the middle east is to crush the palestinian resistance and it supporters. I profoundly disagree with that analysis, but it is not anti semitic or semitic. It is secular and tied to the Likud party "

It seems to me that at the very least he is accusing the President's advisors of acting in support of the Likud party to the detriment of this country.
If that is not a dual-loyalty charge, what is? And if it is a dual-loyalty charge, what tap dance gets you around the reasonable next step, that he dares make this charge because so many of the advisors urging this step are Jewish.

Our interests and Israel's interests are NOT aligned. Our interest is a stable oil supply, with or without Israel. Our interest is curtailing Islamic extreamism directed against the US - not becoming something other than an honest broker in the Israeli-Palistinian conflict. There is a large difference between anti-Semitism and and slavishly supporting Israeli interests. Remember, The Arabs are Semites too.

Wilson's comments in the WaPo chat were not a one off--on June 14, 2003 when he spoke at EPIC (with McGovern) he made the charge more specifically:

"In Wilson's book, Israel is the primary reason the United States went to war against Iraq. He might have made a credible case if he spoke of the need to defend the one functioning democracy in that benighted part of the world, to forestall a second Holocaust, to prevent Saddam from destroying Tel Aviv with a few well-aimed VX-tipped missiles, or even to stop him from commissioning suicide bombers. But to do so might impute sensible motives to Bush and his shadowy neocon advisers.

No, as Wilson sees it, the Iraq war was waged for no nobler purpose than "to make Sharon's life easier." By "easier" he means that the removal of Saddam among other forced changes in the region would "provide the Israeli government with greater wherewithal to impose its terms and conditions on the Palestinian people."

I guess clarice was not impressed by this point from TM, as she is impressed by the kind of argument TM is not impressed by:

Republicans have grown accustomed to hearing that anyone opposed to affirmative action is a racist, as proven by the fact that some affirmative action opponents are racist. That argument does not impress me either.

I don't know that it has to be anti-Semitism.
But there is obviously a faction that believes Israel/Lukid/Sharon pushed us into the war in Iraq. And Wilson seems to step into that camp in the WaPo chat.

So, Libby doesn't have to dislike Wilson for being anti-semitic (or consider him so). But he certainly would have been interested, I'm sure, in seeing this 'truth teller' running with the 'neo-cons are running the war for Israel' crowd.

State Department antipathy toward the Iraq invasion has a similar historical parallel in George Marshall's position that he would continue to work for Truman but would not vote for him after Truman's recognition of Israel. Marshall believed that Truman was being used by Jewish interests (particularly labor unions) in the U. S and suspected that Israel was being recognized by Truman because of his domestic political agenda. It is not hard to make the leap to Colin Powell whose great hero was Marshall. I am not saying that Powell was anti-semitic or anti-Zionist, but the State Department had that history. The Republicans, such as Buchanan, who oppose the war find their roots in 1930-40s Republican isolationism. It is always interesting to go back to Lindberg's 9-11-41 speech to get a flair for this.

The fault lines in this administration seem to be between State Department Scowcroftian realists (many of whom are gentiles) WH/DOD Neocons (many of whom were Jewish). It is almost the same dynamic that was there in Truman's time.

It wouldn't be surprising to me if, given the history of the situation, Libby didn't think that Wilson was performing a hatchet job for the State Department (given Wilson's apparent sponsorship by his friend Scowcroft in the run up to the war). It is entirely possible that that he made some comment to Russert about the State Department's history of anti-Zionism and that there was a State Depatment Cabal out to get the WH. (Given Wilkerson's claims of a DOD/WH cabal, is it unreasonable that the WH might have had the same view of the SD?). Russert, not being tuned in to the extent of the territorial war in Bush Country could have told Libby that his real was not at the State Department, but with Joe Wilson's wife at the CIA.

Clarice...I am not Jewish (Portuguese actually) and I concur...the left is the party of Cybil when it comes to bigotry's,. Ask a liberal their opinions and feelings towards christian fundamentalists...better yet don't.

It certainly isn't anti-Semitism in an old fashioned racialist sense, but it is in the Dreyfuss sense to me.It is do not trust these people in high places charged with defending U.S. interests--they are really acting in the interests of another nation and against the interests of their own.

How else can you read this?

This, by the way, is the Arabists' sub theme--as they rush to early retirement and a cushy spot on the Saudi teat. (Doubt that? google the former siplomats who signed all those letters in support of Kerry and in opposition to Bush.)

Just as sympathy for the supposedly oppressed Palestinian has led to anit-semitism so has Bush Derangement Syndrome led to the repudiation of the Iraqis' right to self-determination. Liberals are sick these days.

And TT, we know there are many descendents of Shem lying about here and there. Do not try to misconstrue the meaning of 'anti-semitism'.
=================================================

I agree TS with your view of liberals..I remember being at a party years ago with the Reuthers. That day Idi Amin was expelling all the Indians from Uganda and stealing everything they owned. I said it was awful, We had to speak out. Victor Reuther's wife responded that she'd been there and it was the Indians' fault, they hadn't really assimilated.
I loved the host, but begged off further parties at his house because i realized I could no longer stomach the hyporcisy of these people.

I always found the push for the common use of the term 'neo-con' to be interesting. It isn't a term this group of thinkers have chosen for themselves, and they've never embraced it. Chris Matthews was an early user of the term, at a time when the only other 'neo' terms in common use were 'neo pets' and 'neo nazis'. I felt the term brought up rather unfortunate associations.

There was a lot of push back against the term itself, in the early 2000's. Remember David Brooks column?

I don't get all this naming business. These are people with views not unlike Scoop Jackson's--remember, when the Dem party actually stood for a virile foreign policy and national defense? Try. Close your eyes and go back, back in time.

Having grown up in a christian fundamentalist world (Baylor BA 79, JD, 82), don't talk to me about christian fundamentalists. I know them inside and out - a veteran of the many battles to define what a Baptist is. I tell you, it is no the same as it once was. A people have forgotten their owm history. Roger Williams is probably turning in his grave as we speak. Bigotry? You have no idea.

Clarice is playing the anti-Semitism(Jewish) card with a vengence. This was the wrong war, at the wrong time, for the wrong reason. These guys though it would be easy - and now they are searching/pining/hoping for an exit - and Sharon - of all people - is leaving Likud. Only Nixon could go to China......

Sorry, TT- the ridiculous policy of the Scowscroftians weren't working --and Bush's are (Libya folded. nuke souk rolled up, Syria thrown out of Lebanon; Taliban smashed and Afghanistan freed; Iraq well on it's way to democracy) Tectonic plates are shifting. It's all good.

I have to get up early and fly to L.A. Niters--and best holiday wishes to all--especially TS.

Having grown up in a christian fundamentalist world (Baylor BA 79, JD, 82), don't talk to me about christian fundamentalists. I know them inside and out - a veteran of the many battles to define what a Baptist is. I tell you, it is no the same as it once was. A people have forgotten their owm history. Roger Williams is probably turning in his grave as we speak. Bigotry? You have no idea.

A universal military draft could be in the works if a new approach to resolving the post-invasion turmoil is not found, Rep. Jim Moran told a near-capacity audience at a town meeting here Monday. The event was held at George mason high School auditorium and featured sharp remarks critical of the Bush Administration by former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

"So, knowing that the plan was to redeploy troops beginning next year, the Democrats decided to get in front of the wave: Demand the troops be sent home NOW and then when the Pentagon announces the plan to redeploy, take credit for it."

I think there were MORE than a few commenter's (creepy?) that a few weeks a ago that obsessively were posting POLL #'s. (and I think since that time Congressional Dems dipped lower than Pubs, but what-eve.)

I pointed out that troops would be coming HOME soon and Rove just faced the dems asses and WROTE next years mid terms election ads...

The passage Clarice quotes in this post is interesting not so much because it might show Wilson to be anti-semetic, but because it shows that at least some people, rightly or wrongly, accuse him of sounding anti-semetic. Perhaps Libby was one of those people.

On the other hand, I'm not sure why it's assumed that Libby confined himself to one complaint about CNBC or Matthews while talking to Russert. Maybe he called to gripe about perceived anti-semitism, but couldn't refrain himself from launching into a jag about that no-good Joe Wilson and the free-ride Matthews was giving him. A two-fer.

[Includes statements: 19:46: "The real agenda in all this, of course, was to redraw the political map of the Middle East. Now that is code, whether you like it or not, but it is code for putting into place the strategy memorandum which was done by Richard Perle and his study group in the mid-90s, which was called 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for the Realm'. And what it is, cut to the quick, is if you take out some of these countries, or some of these governments, that are antagonistic to Israel, then you provide the Israeli government with greater wherewithal to impose its terms and conditions on the Palestinian people. . .But that is the real agenda. You can put weapons of mass destruction out there, you can put terrorism out there, you can put liberation out there. Weapons of mass destruction got hard-headed realists on board, through a bunch of lies. . ."

...
13:33: In response to the question about the geopolitical agenda behind the Iraq war, Wilson replies, "On the other ones, the geopolitical situation, I think there are a number of issues at play; there's a number of competing agendas. One is the remaking of the map of the Middle East for Israeli security, and my fear is that when it becomes increasingly apparent that this was all done to make Sharon's life easier and that American soldiers are dying in order to enable Sharon to impose his terms upon the Palestinians that people will wonder why it is American boys and girls are dying for Israel and that will undercut a strategic relationship and a moral obligation that we've had towards Israel for 55 years. I think it's a terribly flawed strategy."

This whole "neo con" thing, like "no blood for oil," is an attack on motives to discredit the argument. Not sure it qualifies as classic anti-semitism, but it certainly leverages anti-semitism for demagogic purposes (which also appears to be the intent). The root argument is still "war" vs "law enforcement" (which IMHO is unwinnable from the anti-war side unless it's framed properly).

On the Israel issue, most conservatives view the conflict--at least to some significant degree--as a proxy war fought by Arab governments using the Palestinians as cat's paws. And, after several unsuccessful conventional invasion attempts, they perforce rely on terrorism. It's worth noting that the strategy seems to be working, wringing concessions out of Israeli governments that open warfare never achieved. As such, Israel may be viewed as the "canary in a coal mine" in the Global War on Terror, and many of our aims overlap.

The Administration chose to focus on state sponsors of terrorism even before 9/11. The terrorists' need for safe haven, training facilities, and access to materiel (and optimally, national level weapons programs) ought to be obvious. Targeting ties with state sponsors is perfectly logical. There may be an honest debate over whether that's the best course of action, but "neo con" isn't part of it.

Was it anti semitic to attack Clinton's
pardon of Marc Rich ? Actually in some
cases it may have been but that doesn't
make it a legitimate charge against
the many republicans (and also me) who took that position.

Similarly you can describe the Palestinians
as "oppressed" without being anti semitic.
And I won't cope a plea by saying "I really meant by their own leaders"-which is certainly also the case.

" certain politicians are 'serving the aims of another country'" . Could be anti semitic
or could be a description of certain politicians. As a certified anti Bushite
I wouldn't consider saying that about
Wolfiewitz (spelling? I don't mean to be disrespectful) Lieberman . Cohen Albright etc etc.But neither would I completely reject the possibility of at least
divided loyalties in every case.

Think Senator Kennedy and Congressman King
and the IRA . It's not anti catholic to ask whether they had more tolerance for
the acts of those those particular terrorists than they would have had if they
were Protestants. That's certainly what
my british friends believe.

The question doesn't arise in clear cut
cases e.g. 9/11 or "bloody sunday". But
can any of us be 100% sure about whom we
choose to support when the night is dark and all cats are grey ?

"But neither would I completely reject the possibility of at least divided loyalties in every case."

Of course not, you wouldn't reject the possibility of anything that might put the tiniest hole in W's boat. If a little anti-semitism works - why not? I mean it sure doesn't hurt the State department Arabists who cash Saudi checks upon retirement.

Personally, I love the lefties advancement of the argument that Bush is a puppet of the House of Saud being controlled by a Jewish cabal. It truly encapsulates the depth of thought of the entire current 'liberal' movement.

Are Wilson and Matthews anti-semitic?

Both of them are whatever it takes on any given day to advance themselves 1mm.

The open hostility displayed by the left towards conservative jews and blacks is a national disgrace. That it provides cover and fuel for what would be called racist in any other context is undeniable.

I give thanks for the daily ironies. One today is that by so assiduously avoiding entanglement of church and state, the discussion of spirituality in the polity has been impoverished.
============================================

Rick's right, I'm certainly pleased
by anything- well almost anything- that
hurts Bush. That said, of course divided loyalties exist, always have existed
always will. To enquire about them isn't
to attack a Richard Perle , a Ted Kennedy
a Juan Cole , or whomever , it's just calling a spade a spade.

You say it comes from Buchanan and the Left. I would argue that that's coming from the same position. Buchanan hasn't moved in all these years but the Left has wondered over to him in some strange mating ritual of the perpetual loser bird.

It is an improvement on calling a spade "a patriarchal instrument used to inflict damage on Mother Gaia" with pomo explanation of the "true meaning" of "thrusting into the earth" as being "archtypical rape".

Give thanks for small things, too.

Besides, the adoption of the motto of "anti-semitism in defense of tyranny is no vice" is one of the more honest statements I've seen from the other side.

I think it would well behoove the true liberals in this country, if any such exist, to read closely Bill Buckley's book on anti-Semitism and the Right with regard to Israel.

Buckley was very good about drumming the anti-Semites out of the mainstream conservative movement. Liberals need to do the same thing with the elements of the Left and the Buchanite/F.P. Realist Right that they've climbed into bed with in their ill-conceived war agains the President.

"Rick's right, I'm certainly pleased
by anything- well almost anything- that
hurts Bush."

And there was a aimilar comment earlier. The problem is that, since Bush is president, almost anything that hurts the country hurts him as well, and almost vice versa. I voted against Clinton twice, but I always hoped that the decisions he made would work out well for the nation.

I thought it perverse to wish ill on my fellow citizens simply because I disliked Clinton -- for many good reasons. And, as I grumpily admited then, I had to wish Clinton well -- as long as I wished my fellow citizens well. There were times when I could separate the two, but not as often as I would hve liked.

"This whole "neo con" thing, like "no blood for oil," is an attack on motives to discredit the argument. Not sure it qualifies as classic anti-semitism, but it certainly leverages anti-semitism for demagogic purposes (which also appears to be the intent)."

This identification of Israeli interests with anti-anti-Semitism is well nigh bullet-proof. I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood, went to an elementary school that was 30% Jewish and attended more bar mitzvahs than confirmations - but I have rarely seen such blatant appeals to identity politics as I have seen on this thread. According to Clarice, any disagreement with the "Neo-Cons" is anti-Semitism and thus out of bounds. Tom, bless his heart, reinforces this with his comment about "fitting the code".

What code? Are all "Arabists" anti-Semitic? Does anyone who thinks that our interest are not aligned with Israeli interests become an enabler of the "final solution"? This is an emotional appeal similar to the "baby-killer" charge the pro-life crowd uses - stunting debate by labeling the opposition as Jew-haters/Nazis. Can we not disagree without being charged with bigotry tied to genocide? Apparently not.

Israel is a sovereign state. Let them defend their interests. We have enough trouble ascertaining and defending ours.

Basically, anybody who uses the "It's not the Jews..." construct. I've found it works that way more often than not, especially when they don't think they're talking to someone who might disagree with them or if you can keep them talking long enough. Then the second part of the construct comes out. First the public, "It's not the Jews, it's the..." then the private, just-between-us-men-of-the-world, "... but if THOSE PEOPLE would only..." The quote from Rep. Moran above is a perfect example.

TexT"What code? Are all "Arabists" anti-Semitic? Does anyone who thinks that our interest are not aligned with Israeli interests become an enabler of the "final solution"?"

Of course not. I personally think that TM's reference to coded language here is real stretch, and I also think that Israel has been the albatross around the neck of U.S. foreign policy for decades -- regardless of whether or not our support is warranted.

There has, however, been an undeniable anti-semitic tone to a goodly part of the angst over the neo-con "cabal" said to be driving U.S. policy. In any number of forums/sites on the web, you'll find folks forthrightly referring to the "jewish cabal" in Washington. The fact that one of PNAC's central documents was originally penned by Richard Perle for Netanyahu is, more often than not, taken as an automatic premise for discounting the merits of his argument and suspecting his loyalties.

In Europe, a rising tide of anti-semitism has clearly been parading under the more socially acceptable anti-Israel banner, and in the case of France, for one, there's been what should be a disturbing out migration of Jews for a couples of years now. It's not unreasonable to apply a certain extra scrutiny to such sentiments when they are expressed elsewhere too. As David Brooks makes plain, there's plenty of anti-semitism on this side of the pond. The "Straussian" meme which has recently become a commonplace is as notable for its emphasis on Strauss' jewishness and familial connections as his actual philosopy.

Such attitudes are not universal, and they are not universally anti-semitic, but they do exist. Vigilance is important -- better to be over-zealous or over-sensitive than not careful enough.

The terms "states' rights," which has only recently been rehabilitated, is similar in some respects. For years, no one, and especially no southerner, could employ it without being immeditately tarred as a racist. Unfortunately, Reagen actually did use it as a code word to attract southern voters and thus effectively eliminated it from our political vocabulary for decades in the process. Southern republicans are still routinely assumed to be racists, and as frustrating as battling that stereotype might be, that's why Trent Lott had to go after his Strom Thurmond toast. What he meant or didn't mean was irrelevant. The appearance was bad enough, and as a Republican, I wasn't willing to be put in the position of having to explain or defend him. In much the same way, I think it is incumbent on those who are not anti-semitic to question the appearance of anti-semitism wherever we see it too.

One of the graces and strengths of a community is it's sense of differentness from others. This can gall the others, even if the differences are only extrinsic, when the others believe that no intrinsic difference exists.
====================================

Reading the comments, one can be convinced that the Israel-Palestine conflict was at least in the back of the minds of those who advocated invading Iraq.

After all much to the dismay of liberal foreign policy types Bush essentially abandoned the 'peace process' until Arafat died.

Saddam was a destabilizing influence in that conflict.

But 9/11 allowed Bush to make the case for war on the grounds of US national security interests. So invading Iraq was a 'two-fer'. To say that Bush seized the opportunity in order to serve Israel is I think on the order of your garden variety conspiracy theory.

“Well, was anyone convinced by Libby's "I heard about Plame in June from Cheney, but forgot it completely until I heard it again from Russert in July" defense? I didn't think so.”

Why might it be an earth shattering event to learn about Valerie Plame’s place of employment. Are cannons suppose to go off when such a revelation is made? Plame is merely a pencil pusher at Langley. She’s a dime a dozen in the Washingtoin metro area. This is a relatively boring fact that would easily forgotten. Furthermore, If nothing else, Lewis Libby had no reason to lie. What would be his motive?

Clarice, no you are not being "too sensitive". Not being Jewish myself, I have felt this was almost a Anti-Semitism Campaign being waged by DNC/MSM. The only reason I could figure, was that they sided with Europe/UN against Israel.

Hardball was a key leader in the chant of "neo-con, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith".
If you watched his show over a period of time, you would conclude Matthews was promoting the idea that we were in Iraq for Israel---not the USA. He never allowed that we shared similar enemies or problems with zealot Islamics. Matthews never equated someone willing to kill themselves in order to kill some women and children in Israel with someone doing the exact same in New York. On his show, it has always been a theme of those Israel loving neo-cons did this ONLY for Israel.

So, I agree with MJW that Libby could been chewing about anti-Semitism and Wilson, since they promoted the same. Since I believe that they all knew about Plame at NBC/MSNBC, I think it could have been Russert, just as easily as Libby that mentioned Plame. Maybe Russert was so concerned that NBC was going to be charged with anti-Semitism that he got as "confused as Andrea".

[Includes statements: 19:46: "The real agenda in all this, of course, was to redraw the political map of the Middle East. Now that is code, whether you like it or not, but it is code for putting into place the strategy memorandum which was done by Richard Perle and his study group in the mid-90s, which was called 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for the Realm'. And what it is, cut to the quick, is if you take out some of these countries, or some of these governments, that are antagonistic to Israel, then you provide the Israeli government with greater wherewithal to impose its terms and conditions on the Palestinian people. . .But that is the real agenda.[Emphasis not in the original.] You can put weapons of mass destruction out there, you can put terrorism out there, you can put liberation out there. Weapons of mass destruction got hard-headed realists on board, through a bunch of lies. . ."
...
13:33: In response to the question about the geopolitical agenda behind the Iraq war, Wilson replies, "On the other ones, the geopolitical situation, I think there are a number of issues at play; there's a number of competing agendas. One is the remaking of the map of the Middle East for Israeli security, and my fear is that when it becomes increasingly apparent that this was all done to make Sharon's life easier and that American soldiers are dying in order to enable Sharon to impose his terms upon the Palestinians that people will wonder why it is American boys and girls are dying for Israel and that will undercut a strategic relationship and a moral obligation that we've had towards Israel for 55 years. I think it's a terribly flawed strategy."

The lens focused on Israel by Wilson in this piece is Wilson's lens, not the administrations' or anyone elses'. It is Wilson's interpretation, and not necessarily accurate. Many sound reasons existed at the time for taking out Iraq -- only coincidentally favoring the Israeli government.

Wilson's is a frame open to serious misinterpretation and misuse, and one that for no good reason was embraced by a compliant main stream media. Semitism/anti-semitism is irrelevant if Wilson's frame alone has dangerous consequences to the fair understanding of why taking out Iraq seemed at the time the plausible choice among the few good choices then available.

Not sure if Saddam's support of Palestinian bombers triggered a racial reaction but it certainly gave him the power to derail the Middle East "peace process" whenever he wished.

As long as that conflict remained active, most of Saddam's neighbors took the position that it had to be resolved before anything else could be done. If progress occurred, Saddam could stop it. If it wasn't resolved, we couldn't address anything else in the Middle East.

Just like a stalemate in chess where you can force repetition of the same position three times.

Mathews mentioned Israel from time to time, and he clearly thought the neo-cons were shaping the agenda (which they were, actually), but the hobby horse he was really riding was Cheney's office. In the transcript over at TalkLeft, he was calling out Scooter Libby by name.

I just don't see Matthews as an anti-semite. It's possible that Libby did, but I think he already had plenty of more obvious reasons to pitch a fit over Hardball.

I don't see what couldn't make the argument that invasion was not in out national interest without the references to Israel and the neocons which WIlson repteatedly makes.

While he hasn't called out to make the foreign policy establishment judenfrei, his argument TO MT sounds lke this:If you dare to take an anti_arabist position which might be in Israel's interests , we will accuse you of dual loyality.

When I get a chance I will write this up and post the article here. I do so knowing full well that my editor's in box will certainly frill up with the faoulest crap ever..Trust me.

I don't see what couldn't make the argument that invasion was not in out national interest without the references to Israel and the neocons which WIlson repteatedly makes.

While he hasn't called out to make the foreign policy establishment judenfrei, his argument TO ME sounds lke this:If you dare to take an anti_arabist position which might be in Israel's interests , we will accuse you of dual loyality.

When I get a chance I will write this up and post the article here. I do so knowing full well that my editor's in box will certainly frill up with the faoulest crap ever..Trust me.